NPPF: Keith's Shocking Theory (was Preliminary: The Epigraph)

[Jasper Fidget]

On
> Behalf Of Otto
[...]
> 
> Your interpretation is very daring, Keith. I'm really impressed and I
> think
> it shouldn't be dismissed too easily. Boyd's "theory" is daring as well,
> but
> it explains the correspondences between poem and commentary, something
> which
> yours does not. Your clues are all from the poem.


There's every chance K would miss such a theory as Keith's, given his
disregard for any effects his pederastic behavior might have.  Instead there
may be a link between causes found in the commentary and effects found only
in the poem.  (Shade and Kinbote are mirrored in so many other ways, these
characters are practically begging to be read that way.)  For instance you
might argue (as I believe Boyd's Shadean approach does) that Shade's title
"Pale Fire" is borrowed from Kinbote and his version of _Timon of Athens_ in
the Commentary -- that Shade fills in the title in the poem as an effect of
Kinbote's both using that phrase and missing it in his edition of
Shakespeare.